ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2026
Technological Interventions for Dry Eye Disease: A Systematic Review and Random-Effects Network Meta-analysis of 3-Month Outcomes.
Article in Ophthalmology and therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn recent years, various technological therapeutic modalities have emerged aiming to target the underlying pathophysiology of dry eye disease (DED).
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Embase was conducted through July 23, 2025, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating technological interventions for DED, including intense pulsed light (IPL), thermal pulsation (LipiFlow), TearCare, iLux, low-level light therapy (LLLT), transcutaneous electrical stimulation (TES), and quantum molecular resonance (QMR) therapy. Eligible studies reported outcomes for tear break-up time (TBUT), Schirmer test, corneal staining, meibomian gland quality, or symptom severity at 2-4 months post-treatment. Data extraction followed PRISMA guidelines. A frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis was performed, with standardized mean differences calculated for comparative analyses and P-scores used to rank treatment efficacy.
resultsForty-seven RCTs involving 3581 patients from 16 countries were included. TearCare with meibomian gland expression (MGX) and IPL with a heated eye mask (HEM) ranked highest for TBUT improvement (P-scores 0.924 and 0.898, respectively). QMR therapy demonstrated the greatest efficacy for corneal staining (P-score 0.977). TearCare with MGX ranked first for meibomian gland secretion quality (P-score 0.999). IPL-based modalities showed consistent superiority in symptom relief, with IPL plus HEM achieving the highest improvement (P-score 0.910). No serious adverse events were reported.
conclusionsAt 2-4 months, TearCare with MGX and IPL-based protocols demonstrated superior efficacy across objective and subjective DED outcomes compared with other technologies and conservative treatments. Further standardized long-term comparative studies are warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.